linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] mm: Section numbers use the type "unsigned long"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:17:19 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] mm: Section numbers use the type "unsigned long"

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:06:54 +0200 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> wrote:
>> Le 14/06/2019 à 21:00, Andrew Morton a écrit :
>> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 12:01:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> We are using a mixture of "int" and "unsigned long". Let's make this
>> >> consistent by using "unsigned long" everywhere. We'll do the same with
>> >> memory block ids next.
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> -	int i, ret, section_count = 0;
>> >> +	unsigned long i;
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> -	unsigned int i;
>> >> +	unsigned long i;
>> > 
>> > Maybe I did too much fortran back in the day, but I think the
>> > expectation is that a variable called "i" has type "int".
...
>> Codying style says the following, which makes full sense in my opinion:
>> 
>> LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point.  If you have
>> some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``.
>> Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
>> being mis-understood.
>
> Well.  It did say "integer".  Calling an unsigned long `i' is flat out
> misleading.

I always thought `i` was for loop `index` not `integer`.

But I've never written any Fortran :)

cheers